Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me
kevin at scrye.com
Wed Oct 8 19:24:36 UTC 2008
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:09:12 +0200
christoph.wickert at googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert) wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler at chello.at) said:
> > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> > >
> > > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put
> > > just a URL for the upstream web page as the description
> > ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze
> > break policy.
> The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact
> you are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.
Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the FESCo members, but I have been
really busy with my regular job and also I have been mostly in
agreement with the posts by Bill. To expect everyone to respond to a
post on a busy list in under 24 hours can be a bit much.
> > * Package Reviews (were not fully done)
> But that's not my fault I guess.
No it's not. I feel partially to blame, as I looked at those reviews
and they looked to be in progress, but it looks like no one is formally
reviewing them after all. ;(
> > * Comps: new group with id "lxde-desktop", name "LXDE"...
> > o mandatory: lxde-common, lxpanel, openbox, pcmanfm
> > o default: gpicview, leafpad, lxappearance, lxtask,
> > lxterminal, obconf, xarchiver ... (wasn't done)
> Wasn't done because
> * of the missing reviews
> * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go.
A go for what? Adding the comps group?
> Obviously the only one who was at least a little informed is nirik,
> he's also the only one who apologized for "the lack of communication"
> in a conversation we had yesterday.
Yes, and I am sad there was a lack of communication, and I hope things
can be done better next time around.
> But nirik is wrong too: Those LXDE
> packages that are already in Fedora are not there because they have
> been forever but because they were part of my feature (lxtask,
> lxterminal, lxlauncher, ...).
I'm not sure I understand this sentence... ?
Yes, there are other lxde packages that have passed review and are
in, I understand that.
> So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
No, I never claimed that. I claimed that because 2 of them are missing
then the feature must wait. Is that incorrect?
> Summing it all up: My outrage is because
> * nobody contacted my to ask me for status or to tell me the
> feature was dropped. Nobody contacted me at all.
I am very sorry for that. ;(
> * the wiki says : "The feature owner is responsible for
> watching any owned pages for state changes, using the wiki
> watch feature." That's what I did, nevertheless I did not get
That needs to be changed/fixed. The wiki page watch is not sufficent
here I don't think.
> * I think I did everything I could to rescue my feature. I
> someone contacted me I would have responded.
> * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
> feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
> has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
> decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.
I don't understand this. I like the feature, I was using it on my phone
for a while. it's a nice DE. I would love to see it in Fedora.
It was not testable by Beta, so it shouldn't be advertised as a feature
this time. I'm sorry that that is due to communication problems. ;(
I find it very unfortunate.
It's after string freeze, but you can get an exception for that:
So, you can get things in place, and we can advertise this as a Feature
> * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails.
> Once again: I accept that my feature is delayed, but I can not accept
> the way it was done.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the fedora-devel-list